RE: [council] another suggestion for ACSO meeting
I probably would see more value to the topic of the IDN ccTLD fast tract
if we add some some meaningful subtopics such as the recommendation
regarding DNSSEC & New gTLDs in the Root Server Study. A useful
discussion might be around this specific question: Should the fast
track process be delayed until DNSSEC plans are more clear? We could
also continue discussion of one and two character IDN TLDs if that is
not resolved in DAG3.
Discussing issues like these seem more valuable than spending a lot of
time restating concerns that we have stated many times before. I am not
saying that we shouldn't restate those concerns (e.g., contracts, fees,
competitive advantage) but I think it would be best that we very briefly
restate them and then move on to issues like the root server report
recommendation and any remaining IDN TLD technical issues.
If we have more details before the ACSO meeting regarding our concerns
regarding contracts and fees, a discussion regarding how the proposed
solutions address our concerns could be useful.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:21 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] another suggestion for ACSO meeting
> On 22 Sep 2009, at 06:05, Stephvg2 wrote:
> > I share Chuck's concerns. Seems like in attempting to find
> the least
> > potentially controversial topic possible, the final result is a
> > discussion around a topic that's already history.
> I think the point is that it is not quite history.
> The vote has yet to be taken by the Board, so this was seen
> as offering a chance before that vote to make sure hat all
> that needed to be said, has been said. For example in
> addition to reiterating any current arguments about
> competition in IDN TLD between the Gs and CCs in any of the
> fast track countries, people may even want to make new points
> that come out of the recently released Root Study report(s)
> about no TLDs, G or CC, going into the root until the DNSSEC
> process has completed. Or there may yet be discussions that
> have not yet occurred.
> In any case, I have already passed on the view held by some
> on the council that the ACSO meetings are perhaps an
> experiment whose time has come and gone.
> But I will pass on the range of views I get from the council.